Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s reaction to Daniel Penny’s acquittal in the Jordan Neely case is as predictable as it is tone-deaf—a mix of grudging acceptance, victimhood, and a not-so-subtle attempt to spin the whole debacle as a win for his office. Penny’s not-guilty verdict was not just a rebuke of the case Bragg’s team tried to cobble together; it was a referendum on the DA’s ideologically driven approach to justice, and let’s be honest, it’s not a great look.
From the start, this case reeked of overreach. Daniel Penny, a Marine veteran, stepped in to protect fellow subway passengers from a visibly agitated Jordan Neely, a man with a long history of violent outbursts. Neely’s tragic death was, by most accounts, an unintended consequence of Penny’s intervention—not the criminal act Bragg’s office tried so hard to paint it as. And when the jury ultimately saw through the flimsy narrative, Bragg’s statement was a masterclass in deflection.
Bragg wants us to believe his office “followed the facts and evidence” when, in reality, it looks like they followed public pressure and political expediency. His decision to drop the second-degree manslaughter charge mid-trial smacks of desperation. By the time the jury delivered its unanimous not-guilty verdict, it was clear that Bragg’s prosecution had failed to convince anyone but his loudest ideological supporters.
But, of course, Bragg wasn’t about to take any responsibility. Instead, he pivoted to lamenting the “hate and threats” his office allegedly faced during the trial. While no one condones threats of violence, let’s not pretend Bragg’s team didn’t fan the flames with its racially charged rhetoric. Referring to Penny as “the white man” during the trial was a blatant attempt to inject identity politics into a case that should have been about facts and law, not racial grievance-mongering.
New statement from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Daniel Penny acquittal
Jurors’ lengthy deliberation underscored why this case was put in front of a jury of Mr. Penny’s peers, Bragg says
“The jury has now spoken.” https://t.co/SAeSkAZjpm pic.twitter.com/NjxVdB0D1Y
— Dan Rivoli (@danrivoli) December 9, 2024
Meanwhile, the courtroom protests and chants of “No justice, no peace” underscored just how polarizing this case became. The defense was right to raise concerns about jury intimidation, and while the judge dismissed these fears, the optics were undeniable. Anti-Penny agitators made it clear they were willing to make as much noise as possible to sway the proceedings. Bragg’s office, rather than condemning such antics, seemed content to let them play out.
Enter Maud Maron, Bragg’s Republican challenger in the 2025 DA race, who wasted no time highlighting the core issue: Alvin Bragg got it wrong. Maron’s statement cut through the noise with refreshing clarity, pointing out that the NYPD officers who initially chose not to arrest Penny, the jury who acquitted him, and the public who saw Penny as a Good Samaritan all understood what Bragg refused to accept—this case should never have been brought in the first place.
Maron’s critique of Bragg’s “reckless ideological agenda” rings true. Under his leadership, Manhattan has seen a soft-on-crime approach that prioritizes political posturing over public safety. His office’s pursuit of Penny felt less like a quest for justice and more like a calculated effort to placate activists. Meanwhile, New York City’s streets and subways remain plagued by the very chaos Penny tried to mitigate.
This is what Alvin Bragg, Governor Hochul, Mayor Adams, and BLACK LIVES MATTER Do not want you to see.
Daniel Penny is a Hero to all of those in that Subway Carriage. pic.twitter.com/yjdRcXL3V4— Steve Kerwin (@stevenkerwin) December 10, 2024
Ultimately, Daniel Penny’s acquittal is a victory for common sense, but it’s also a stark reminder of the dangers posed by prosecutors who prioritize ideology over impartiality. New Yorkers deserve better than Alvin Bragg’s brand of justice—and come 2025, they may finally get it.
